[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781) › 6.7.2 # 維摩經義疏 6.7.2 維摩經義疏 6.7.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7.2) 三不觀色性，遣非有非無也。 以法身超於四句，故亦不觀非有非無。 「非四大起，同於虛空」下，五陰為果、四大為因，果既非佛，因亦然矣。 非因非果，故同於虛空。 「六入無積」下，法身既非因果，亦超內外，以非外內，故不可積聚六入即成佛也。 「眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、心已過」下，前明非外入，此辨過內性。 「不在三界」下，上六入過，容謂不在有六入處，或謂應在無六入處，故復云不在三界。 「三垢已離」下，上明無三界果，此辨無三界因。 以無三垢，故不在三界。 自上六門，明如來離諸惑相。 「順三脫門」下，此明法身具於眾德。 以順三脫門，故離三垢。 「三明、無明等」下，三明有二：一天眼、宿命、漏盡三也； 二依《涅槃經》：一、菩薩明，謂波若也； 二、諸佛眼，即佛眼也。 三、無明明，謂畢竟空。 畢竟空者，體非慧性，故非明； 能生實慧，故云明也。 如五塵生五欲，亦名為欲，以順三脫門故，能明無明等。 又或者謂三脫門是明，故次泯之。 所以云明無明等。 「不一相、不異相」下，僧肇公云「無象不象，故不可為一； 象而不象，故不可為異。 」接上生者，明無明等，便謂為一； 如其非一，便隨異相，是故今明不一不異。 「不自相、不他相」下，應身由物感故不自，法身體寂故不他。 僧肇云「不自而同自，故自而不自； 不他而同他，故他而不他。 無相之身豈可以自他而觀其體耶？ 」「非無相、非取相」下，隨他施為，故非無相； 而德體常寂、無有分別，故非取相。 此就合二身釋。 僧肇云「非無物之相，非可取之相」，但就法身釋也。 「不此岸、不彼岸、不中流」下，生死本無，故非此岸； 涅槃今不有，故非彼岸。 既無彼此，何有八正中流？ 又常在生死故不彼、不捨涅槃故不此，雙行二行無所偏著，故不中流。 「而化眾生」下，向云不三，則似息化，故今云雖復不三，而常教化，令悟不三。 「觀於寂滅亦不永滅」下，既云化眾生，似見有眾生，則非寂滅。 故今明雖化常寂，所以云觀於寂滅； 雖復寂滅，而常教化，故非永滅。 「不此不彼」下，既化眾生，則在於彼此。 法身無相，故不在彼此。 又國土皆如，無此可在，名為不此； 無彼可在，故云不彼。 「不以此不以彼」下，不此而同此，故此而不此； 不彼而同彼，故彼而不彼，豈復以此而同此、以彼而同彼乎？ 蓋明聖心無有心，以而同心也。 「不可以智知、不可以識識」下，聖人十智不知、凡夫六識不識。 凡智識之生，生於相內； 法身無相，故智識不及。 「無晦無明」下，法身無知，故非明； 無所不知，故非晦。 「無名無相」下，不可以名名，不可以相相，故方圓不能寫、題目不能傳。 「無強無弱」下，至柔無逆故不剛，剛無不伏故不弱。 又運動天地而不剛，應盡無常而不弱。 「非淨非穢」下，垢無不盡，故非穢； 果無不入，故非淨。 又相好嚴身，非其淨也； 金鏘馬麥，亦非穢也。 「不在方不離方」下，妙非三界，故不在方； 惑無不應，故不離方。 「非有為非無為」下，相不能遷，故非有為； 妙用無窮，故非無為。 「無示無說」下，六情所不及，豈可說以示人？ 將言對人為示，以言因法為說。 又應見者為示，應聞者為說。 而佛不可見聞，故無說無示。 「不施不慳，不戒不犯，不忍不恚，不進不怠，不定不亂，不智不愚」下，以六度為體，故能如響之應耳。 而言所應度者，則不度也，無度無不度，然後度耳。 「不誠不欺」下，誠，實也。 欺，誑也。 不可以善善，故不誠； 不可以惡惡，故不欺。 又虛捐三事，故不誠； 終今得一，故不欺。 「不來不去，不出不入」下，乘如實道為來，善逝入滅為去，驚赴火宅為入，在門外立為出，而法身實無也。 「一切言語道斷」下，總結上來諸句，辨不可言也。 > Third, not contemplating the nature of form dispels "neither existence nor non-existence." Because the dharmakāya transcends the four propositions (catuṣkoṭi), it is also not contemplated as neither existence nor non-existence. Below, from "Not arising from the four great elements, equal to empty space": the five aggregates are the effect, and the four great elements are the cause; since the effect is not the Buddha, the cause is likewise not. Being neither cause nor effect, it is therefore equal to empty space. Below, from "With no accumulation of the six sense entrances": since the dharmakāya is neither cause nor effect, it also transcends internal and external; being neither internal nor external, it cannot be that an accumulation of the six sense entrances constitutes the Buddha. Below, from "Transcending eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind": the preceding explained that it is not the external entrances, and this explains that it transcends the internal nature. Below, from "Not existing in the three realms": as the six entrances were said above to be transcended, one might presume that it does not exist where there are six entrances, or one might presume that it must exist where there are no six entrances; therefore it is further said that it is not in the three realms. Below, from "Having abandoned the three defilements": the above explained that there are no effects of the three realms, and this explains that there are no causes of the three realms. Because there are no three defilements, it is not in the three realms. These preceding six gates explain that the Tathāgata is free from all marks of delusion. Below, from "In accordance with the three gates of liberation": this explains that the dharmakāya is endowed with all virtues. Because it accords with the three gates of liberation, it abandons the three defilements. Below, from "The three clarities, equal to ignorance": there are two kinds of three clarities (vidyā): first, the three of the divine eye, recollection of past lives, and extinction of taints; second, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, (1) the bodhisattva's clarity, which is prajñā; (2) the Buddha-eye of the Buddhas, which is the Buddha-eye; and (3) the clarity of non-clarity (avidyā), which is ultimate emptiness. As for ultimate emptiness, its essence is not of the nature of wisdom, so it is not clarity; yet it can give rise to real wisdom, so it is called clarity. Just as the five sensory dusts give rise to the five desires and are also termed desire, because of according with the three gates of liberation, one can equalize clarity and ignorance, and so forth. Furthermore, some might take the three gates of liberation to be clarity, and thus it is subsequently obliterated; hence it says "clarity is equal to ignorance," and so on. Below, from "Neither of single mark nor of different marks": Lord Sengzhao says: "There is no image that is not an image, so it cannot be considered single; it images yet is not an image, so it cannot be considered different." Connecting to the preceding: if one equalizes clarity and ignorance, one might consider them single; if they are not single, one follows marks of difference; therefore it is now explained as neither single nor different. Below, from "Neither of self-mark nor of other-mark": the response body arises through the resonance of sentient beings, hence not self; the essence of the dharmakāya is quiescent, hence not other. Sengzhao says: "Not being self yet according with self, it is self yet not self; not being other yet according with other, it is other yet not other. How could the markless body have its essence contemplated in terms of self and other?" Below, from "Neither without marks nor grasping marks": adapting to others in its actions, it is therefore not without marks; yet the essence of virtue is ever quiescent and without discrimination, therefore not grasping marks. This is explained in terms of combining the two bodies. Sengzhao says: "It is not the mark of having no things, nor is it a mark that can be grasped"; he explains it solely in terms of the dharmakāya. Below, from "Neither on this shore, nor on the other shore, nor in the midstream": saṃsāra is originally non-existent, hence not this shore; nirvāṇa does not exist at present, hence not the other shore. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be the midstream of the Eightfold Noble Path? Furthermore, being constantly in saṃsāra, it is not the other; not abandoning nirvāṇa, it is not this; practicing both practices without one-sided attachment, it is therefore not in the midstream. Below, from "Yet transforming sentient beings": as it was just said to be not the three, it would seem to cease transforming; therefore it is now said that although it is not the three, it constantly teaches and transforms, causing them to awaken to the non-three. Below, from "Contemplating quiescent extinction yet not eternally extinguished": since it says transforming sentient beings, it would seem that sentient beings are seen to exist, which would not be quiescent extinction. Therefore it is now explained that although transforming, it is ever quiescent, which is why it says "contemplating quiescent extinction"; although quiescently extinguished, it constantly teaches and transforms, hence not eternally extinguished. Below, from "Neither here nor there": since it transforms sentient beings, it would be in this or that \[place\]. The dharmakāya is markless, hence not here or there. Furthermore, the buddha-lands are all suchness: there is no "this" that can be inhabited, which is termed not here; there is no "there" that can be inhabited, hence it says not there. Below, from "Neither through this nor through that": not being this yet according with this, it is this yet not this; not being that yet according with that, it is that yet not that—how could it again be according with this through this, or according with that through that? This illuminates that the sage's mind has no mind, using "through" to accord with minds. Below, from "Cannot be known by wisdom, cannot be cognized by consciousness": the ten knowledges of the sage do not know it; the six consciousnesses of the ordinary person do not cognize it. In general, the arising of wisdom and consciousness arises within marks; the dharmakāya is markless, so wisdom and consciousness cannot reach it. Below, from "Neither darkness nor illumination": the dharmakāya is without cognition, hence not illumination; there is nothing it does not know, hence not darkness. Below, from "Without name and without mark": it cannot be named with a name, and cannot be marked with a mark; therefore square and circle cannot depict it, and titles cannot transmit it. Below, from "Neither strong nor weak": being supremely pliant with no resistance, it is not rigid; being rigid with nothing unvanquished, it is not weak. Furthermore, moving heaven and earth it is not rigid; responsive to the end of impermanence, it is not weak. Below, from "Neither pure nor defiled": with no taint that is not extinguished, it is not defiled; with no fruit into which it does not enter, it is not pure. Furthermore, the major and minor marks adorning the body are not its purity; the iron lance and the horse barley are likewise not its defilement. Below, from "Neither in a direction nor apart from directions": being wondrous and beyond the three realms, it is not in a direction; with no delusion to which it does not respond, it is not apart from directions. Below, from "Neither conditioned nor unconditioned": marks cannot alter it, hence not conditioned; its wondrous functioning is inexhaustible, hence not unconditioned. Below, from "Without showing and without preaching": being beyond the reach of the six sense faculties, how could it be spoken of to show people? Using words to address people is "showing"; relying on words because of the Dharma is "preaching." Furthermore, showing is for those who should see, and preaching is for those who should hear. But the Buddha cannot be seen or heard, hence there is no preaching and no showing. Below, from "Neither giving nor stingy, neither keeping precepts nor transgressing, neither patient nor angry, neither diligent nor indolent, neither concentrated nor distracted, neither wise nor foolish": taking the six pāramitās as its essence, it can thus respond like an echo. Yet as for the so-called beings to be saved, none are saved; only by neither saving nor not saving does it subsequently save. Below, from "Neither sincere nor deceptive": "sincere" means true; "deceptive" means misleading. Because it cannot be considered good through goodness, it is not sincere; because it cannot be considered evil through evil, it is not deceptive. Furthermore, it empties and abandons the three things, hence not sincere; yet ultimately attains the One, hence not deceptive. Below, from "Neither coming nor going, neither emerging nor entering": riding the path of real suchness is "coming"; the Sugata entering extinction is "going"; hastening into the burning house is "entering"; standing outside the gate is "emerging"; yet the dharmakāya is in reality devoid of them. Below, from "The path of all words is cut off": this summarizes the preceding phrases, explaining that it cannot be expressed in words. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7.1) - [Next: 6.7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7.3) - [Up: 6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781~en-mt.6.7.2) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.9.304) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.6.7.2) · Pramāṇa